Creative Commons- Executive Summary


Over the past nine months Creative Commons has evolved from a brilliant idea full of possibility into a brilliant idea that now must address a number of practical questions before becoming operational. Our goal for the May 7 meeting is to resolve as many of these practical questions as possible. Since our teleconference last January, a number of us have been working on these questions and will try to present the issues to you fully and fairly. We all recognize that Creative Commons still needs a lot of work, and our meeting may resemble less the last 10 yards of a kick-off return, and more the first 90. That said, with a good hard day of work we should be able to resolve the tough issues facing this organization.

This meeting is meant to lead to concrete decisions for Creative Commons. As you will notice, the structure of this memo roughly parallels the itinerary for the meeting. We expect the process of systematically going through the relevant issues confronting the Commons to be useful, both procedurally and substantively. We hope that it will sharpen our focus and allow us to finally decide what the Commons will become and how it will get there. With that in mind, please be ready to discuss the relevant issues and - above all - ready to decide how the Commons should proceed.

At the teleconference in January, we came to the consensus that the primary function of the Commons is “to facilitate free/low-cost public use of original works.” How will we measure our success in reaching this goal? Do we measure success by the number of donations or the number of downloads, the quantity or the quality of our content, the breadth of our offerings or our depth in a given field, the derivative use we enable or the comprehensive archive we create, the degree of interaction among our users or the ease of one-stop shopping, the organization we build or the statement we make -- or some other criteria not yet mentioned? This list is hardly exhaustive, and the choices are not meant to be concrete, but we must decide on our conception of a successful venture in order to focus our efforts.

Our conception of success will shape the structure and needs of the Commons. For example, a Commons defined by quantity of content available (or number of donations) will require more storage space and less screening of content, while one focused on quality will require expert content-selection, but perhaps correspondingly less storage capacity. Servers, storage, and salaried editors all cost money, and as a not-for-profit entity, we must choose our expenses carefully. There are other practical considerations: in choosing breadth of offerings we sacrifice the depth of a specialized niche, and a Commons with a little bit of everything may not be as useful as a site devoted to one type of content. Conversely, by specializing in literature or academic work, for example, we sacrifice spreading our message to a wider audience. The Commons may very well be successful along any number of measures, but it is unlikely to be successful on all of them. Choosing our measures and structuring the Commons accordingly should be one of the outcomes of this meeting.

Is there a known demand that we can satisfy rather than invent? Possibilities span both sides of the producer/user transaction, and may exist in any number of markets: academic journals, scientific databases, out-of-print books, and struggling artists of all kinds, to name just a few. If we can identify a demand that is not currently being met – either because of restrictive IP laws or because of the absence of anyone filling the particular niche – then it makes sense to target that demand. Focusing on a known demand will spare us the effort of trying to create demand out of whole cloth and will allow us to hone our model on the pre-existing needs of an already established donor/user base.

There are two components to this demand. First, we must identify a group of people or institutions in need of a commons. Second, we must identify the specific needs of that group. On the donor side, our target group comprises those artists who would like an affirmative means to contribute their work to the Commons either under the terms of an open-source license or by abandoning the work to the public domain. On the user side, this is the group of people who would use more IP, but for their inability to obtain legal permission. Broadly defined, this is our target audience. But can we be more specific? Will the Commons work better for scientific data than for film, better for film out-takes than for musical recordings, better for literature than for visual art…?

Secondly, we should be sure that the Commons provides a service that people actually want. If what users really want is digital access to out-of-print books or hard-to-find journals, then a digital library may be the best model, and the open-source license a mere superfluity. Alternately, if what users want is legal permission to create derivative works from original material that is not yet in the public domain, then the Commons should be a rights clearinghouse, offering useful material to creative people on terms which are attractive to both producers and users of creative works. Many of these (and similar) interests are already being served both commercially and non-commercially, so the Commons must be careful to neither step on the toes of our open-source friends nor get into a losing battle with a commercial competitor. (You can find a brief summary of our competition in Part C of this section below.)

A. Will We Focus on Producers or Consumers of IP?

For the Commons to succeed, it must offer something of value to both producers and consumers of intellectual property. As we have imagined the Commons up until now, the value we offer is as a matchmaker – bringing content to an audience, and an audience to the content. But the terms on which this match occurs will affect each side of the transaction differently. For example, a more restrictive license would favor the donor over the consumer, while screening the content for quality and relevance might benefit the consumer at the expense of a disappointed artist. Lest we alienate one of the two indispensable parties to this transaction, we must strike the appropriate balance between features directed at donors and those directed at users. And as our polling of authors and artists reveals, there are a number of potentially deal-breaking concerns with the open source license. (See Report from the Creative Community for details.)

We must offer donors of intellectual property something of value. Because the tax considerations provide only a minimal incentive to most classes of donors, there must be something more to motivate donations. There are a number of possibilities, both non-economic and economic. The non-economic motivations include the ‘warm feeling in your soul’ attendant to contributing to the public good, respect among one’s peers in the open source community, and the flattery embedded in wide circulation of one’s work. The economic motivations include increased circulation of donated work, potential increase in demand for an artist’s other work, and the potential for undiscovered artists to be discovered and ‘signed’ by the major labels or publishing houses. Most of these motivations require something more than just a website that hosts a lot of donated content – they require some degree of content and artist promotion, as well as some degree of assurance that a first-rate Robert Frost poem is not buried under hundreds of third-rate limericks from an army of adolescent ‘humorists’ with too much spare time.

Likewise, we must offer consumers something of value. The most fundamental source of value is our content: good content will attract more donors and more users. Conversely, if there isn’t anything good in the Commons, no one will use it. Realistically, with so many commercial actors in the field, it is unlikely that we will ever draw content from the most popular artists – Madonna and the Rolling Stones will always pick a commercial site over ours. This shouldn’t stop us, but we shouldn’t fool ourselves either. We just need to offer something that the commercial sites don’t – or target a community that the commercial sites overlook. Once we have a collection of quality content, it is essential that the collection be well indexed and easily searchable. Easy-to-understand, generous licenses will also be valuable to users, though we must be sure to calibrate the licenses to reflect their needs.

B. Will the Commons Have an Institutional or Individual Focus?

The structure, functionality, and range of services offered by the Commons will vary according to the community we target. One important breakdown is between institutional and individual users/producers of intellectual property. Will the Commons have the capacity to bargain with large institutional holders of IP, so that we might digitize and host the backlog of National Geographic or create a digital image bank for the Smithsonian? Or will the Commons focus on helping individuals upload their own photographs, poetry, and e-books onto the Web? An institutional focus would require a larger organization with more resources, but it could also lead to more publicity and possible sources of revenue. An individual focus might be easier to manage, but it may deprive of some of the best content and overlook some natural allies at the institutional level.

C. How Will We Distinguish Ourselves from the Competition? Our field is becoming increasingly crowded with both commercial and not-for-profit players. Some, like the Knowledge Conservancy and, function as digital archives or libraries. Others, like or serve as distribution outlets for artists. Still others, like Qpass or, serve as permissions clearing services for users. We must either distinguish ourselves from our ‘competitors’ or ally with them for mutual advantage and a greater good. We should also keep in mind that with the presence of commercial sites in our field, the need for the Commons to offer an identifiable value to artists and users becomes all the more acute. Though no one has proposed anything identical to the models we’ve discussed, the sites below are close enough to merit attention, either as inspiration or for contradistinction.

Commercial sites
A commercial site for e-books. The site targets authors whose books are either out of print or to which the author has retained e-book rights. For a fee the company will digitize the works and put them into all of the appropriate e-book formats. There is a $5.00 -$12.00 fee per download, which is split 50/50 between the company and the author. Partners include Random House and
A commercial site from Stephen Brill. The site has a vast, easily searchable database of newspapers and magazines, books, dissertations, speeches, news transcripts, and legal documents. The site charges per download, but members of “Contentville” get a discounted rate. In some sense, the site is like a broader, less meticulous version of Westlaw or Lexis-Nexis.
A permissions clearing service targeting users who wish to license large quantities of Internet content for redistribution (an example is a company that wants to distribute a favorable article from a magazine in its annual statement to shareholders). The icopyright icon is placed at the bottom of a content-provider’s site, allowing the user to click on the icon to be taken to a preformatted icopyright screen, allowing the user to specify type and quantity of use; payment is directly to, which then pays the content-provider. Partners include the Los Angeles Times.
Similar to, but users first set up an account with Qpass, which bills them for their use of content from their partners’ sites. Users then have a virtual passport allowing them to use content from partner sites. Partners include the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and USA Today.
The Copyright Clearance Center is the granddaddy of rights clearance centers, with an enormous database and a variety of service plans for academic, government, and private sector uses.
An image archive allowing users to easily download over 2.1 million images, including photographs, paintings, and New Yorker cartoons. Target audience ranges from creative professionals and business users to home consumers. Has over 1300 employees around the world. Partners include Yahoo, ACD Image Management, and
A promotional site for up-and-coming musicians. Users review the tracks on the site, and bands with the best reviews are eligible for a $250,000 recording contract, given out every two months. Advisory board includes George Martin and Brian Eno.
A site to help already-established bands extend their success online. The site links to artists’ official sites, sells artist merchandise, and has audio and video streaming of work by featured artists. Artists cover the pop spectrum from Madonna to the Rolling Stones.

Not-for-profit sites
PubMed Central is being developed by the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) at the U.S. National Library of Medicine (NLM). It seeks to be a world-class digital library for research and journal publications in all of the life sciences. Access is free and unrestricted. Journals must meet certain editorial standards for inclusion on the PubMed Central site.
Eldritch Press is a digital archive of literature in the public domain, catalogued by author and genre, and available for download on a free and unrestricted basis.
Essentially an online archive, preserving proprietary material and making it freely available to the public. The Knowledge Conservancy has an aggressive goal of digitizing 25% of all copyrighted content by the end of the century. By offering only rudimentary online access over the long term, the Knowledge Conservancy will still allow producers of material to exploit the short-term and value-added aspects of their intellectual property.
Openculture’s model is to buy works into the public domain. Authors name their asking prices, triggering donations from openculture users. When the asking price is met, the author is paid and the work is then published on the website as public domain material, available to anyone (not just those who donated to its purchase).

D. What Is Our Comparative Advantage?

We should exploit whatever comparative advantage we have over our competitors. There are a number of possible areas in which we have a comparative advantage. First, we have legal expertise that our competitors lack. We can write innovative, easy-to-understand, generous licenses to govern work in the Commons, and (using our pro bono legal resources) we can selectively assist in the litigation of disputes arising out of their use. Second, through MIT and the Berkman Center, we have the staff and technical expertise to create and disseminate a workable platform on which to create the Commons, to assist in the digitization of material, and to help in the construction of websites; perhaps we could come up with a comprehensive package to give/sell to members/users of the Commons. Third, our board members have prominence within key communities (including the open source community), which can be leveraged into increased visibility for the Commons and further publicity for the public domain. Fourth, we have direct access to the academic world – a community that already has an ethic of cooperation, making it an ideal audience for this type of organization. Fifth, although the Commons will not have any direct affiliation with our respective universities, we nevertheless have the credibility of those universities working in our favor. If there are others, we should identify them and decide how they can be used for the Commons.

At this point, we should briefly recognize that we are also at a comparative disadvantage relative to a number of commercial players in the field. For instance, it is unlikely that we will ever have more popular music than the commercial labels or a more comprehensive database than Lexis, and we should be make sure not to get into a losing battle with our commercial competitors.


The overarching structural question is whether the Commons should be centralized around a particular website or distributed over the Internet. The answer to this question will have profound impacts on the structure of the Commons, leading to vastly different responsibilities and expenditures for the organization. Under a centralized approach, we would commit ourselves to hosting, editing, monitoring, and attracting content to the site, and then maintaining the site as the Commons. This centralized Commons could either be broad in scope – offering everything from poetry to patents, Hollywood movies to digitized finger painting – or instead it could focus on a particular niche, specializing, in out-of-print books or poetry. Under the distributed approach, we could develop an open-source licensing protocol to allow for a distributed network of member sites, each of which is responsible for its own content, linked together and searchable through our central server. The Commons might ‘seed’ an initial site or two, and assist in the development of member sites, but would otherwise remain a meta-structure. See Table in Part D of this section for summary.

You may recall the three-zoned structure for Creative Commons that was discussed over email earlier this year, and which forms the basis of the Memorandum on Liability under the DMCA (page 20 of this booklet). Under that structure, Zone A is reserved for high-quality content owned by the Commons, which we would digitize and host on our own site. Zone B is to be structured along the lines of , with individual sites hosted by the Commons and donors retaining ownership of the material. Zone C is to be a search engine providing links to open-source content on the Web. This zoning structure is as much a means of reducing our liability, as it is a way to ensure that we not spend our limited resources on content that is better left to end-users (or outside the Commons altogether). But because the features of the three-zoned structure are modular, and are easily incorporated into the structures set out below, we have left discussion of the three-zoned model to the Memo on Liability, focusing this discussion on broader structural issues. Once we decide on a basic structure for the Commons, we can then reintegrate desired features of the three-zoned approach, as liability and viability concerns dictate.

A. Centralized Commons: Broad in Scope

Under this model, the Commons would be a place where users can access all kinds of intellectual property, brought together on one site and unified under one open-source licensing regime. This is the approach that was discussed at our previous meetings, leading to the idea that each school could specialize in a particular kind of content. The upside to such an approach is that the Commons could be huge – like an eBay for open-source IP. Though there may be a fairly slow ramp-up before we get a critical mass of content, once we gather enough good material, the Commons may develop a gravitational force of its own, attracting more and more content, eventually providing something for everyone.

But a broad, horizontal Commons could quickly become a victim of its own success – either a junkyard or a bazaar that is only marginally distinct from the Web itself. Moreover, by trying to do so much all at once, we risk diluting our service such that we are vulnerable to ‘competitors,’ each one picking off a niche until we are left with nothing but junk. Or, if the competitors don’t materialize, we risk our own “tragedy of the Commons,” in which the Commons simply becomes too unwieldy to be useful to anyone.

We must also keep in mind the costs of running a large Commons. Digitizing, storing, and providing server capacity for terabytes of information can quickly become prohibitively expensive. And if we wish to do any screening of content (either to promote a work as a Feature of the Week or to decide that so-and-so’s graduation videos don’t merit space in the Commons), then we must employ a staff of editors. This too can get expensive. (Four editors x $40,000/year = $160,000.) Obviously, the more successful we are, the more it costs to run the Commons. But the consensus among our consultants from McKinsey & Co. is that the increase in costs will outpace our increase in use, leading to a cost/benefit differential that will most likely be fatal to a large Commons.

B. Centralized Commons: A Niche Player

On this model, the Commons would specialize in one particular type of IP – literature or poetry, for example. There are a number of benefits to vertical specialization. First, concentrating on one type of IP is likely to be a more manageable endeavor than trying to cast a wide net early on. A smaller scale project will allow us to gauge donor/user response and adjust our model accordingly. We can use this adjusted model, together with any credibility we establish in the initial field, to expand into other fields, growing the Commons one field at a time. Second, if we tackle only one type of IP at a time, we can ensure better content quality, hiring specialists in the particular field we choose and striving for meaningful depth in that field. Third, by offering only one type of IP, the material on the site remains coherent, so users don’t jump from first-rate poems to third-rate snapshots to second-rate textile designs, all on the same page. Fourth, the open-source model may not work as well in every field, and we may want to steer clear of those fields in which a failed open-source attempt could dilute the overall strength of our message.

There are two drawbacks unique to a narrowly focused commons. First, by focusing on one type of IP, we limit our message to that field – poets, out-of-print-book lovers, or film fanatics – rather than spreading it as broadly as possible. Second, a vertically specialized Commons will be a smaller project than what has been discussed prior to this meeting, and it is not clear that a niche commons will merit the sustained interest and energy of this group. Neither of these is insurmountable – especially since the prospect of expansion is always on the table – but we should address both of these drawbacks to see if we can agree on one or two fields in which to begin the Commons.

C. A Distributed Commons

On this model, the Commons might resemble the Chicago Mercantile Exchange or the New York Stock Exchange, serving as a trusted matchmaker to facilitate the transaction of securing rights. Just as corporations or commodities producers must meet certain criteria before they are listed on the Exchange, we could condition ‘listing’ in the Commons on similar criteria, albeit reflecting open source rather than financial values. For example, we could require that in order for a site to be listed in the Commons, the operators of that site must prove that any content on their site is non-infringing and agree that it can be licensed out on whatever license (or menu of licenses) we offer through the Commons. In addition, member sites could be required to index their content in such a way as to increase the search functionality of the Commons. Any site that doesn’t meet these criteria could be ‘de-listed’ from the Commons until it meets the open-source and indexing requirements.

A distributed structure for the Commons offers a number of benefits. First, a distributed structure allows the collection and editing of material by those with expertise in given fields – poets creating sites for poets, and film-makers for film-makers – using the marketplace of expertise, rather than putting the burden on us to ensure the quality of the content. Second, because the content would be hosted by these member sites, we could avoid the significant expenditures associated with hosting terabytes of material, focusing instead on search functionality, public relations to establish the credibility and visibility of the Commons, technical and legal assistance to our member sites, and securing funding to defray the costs of the members. Third, as a facilitator, the Commons can develop packages/platforms to help members (or even non-members) digitize and archive their old audio/visual collections. Finally, there is a certain rhetorical appeal to having the Commons embedded within the Internet as a whole, rather than located on one particular site.

There are also some drawbacks to a distributed Commons, though none appears insurmountable. First, by not having everything on our own site, we potentially give up some of the cache attendant to having our own site with its own content. However, this can be remedied by building the brand of the Commons/Exchange platform, just like Yahoo or the NYSE. Second, as in any distributed structure, we give up a degree of control over the Commons. Likewise, we can address this by requiring that member sites meet certain stringent criteria – especially with respect to infringing material. Third, there is no guarantee that ‘if we build it, they will come.’ This is a concern generally applicable to the Commons, whatever its structure. Poets, filmmakers, and other artists/editors may be reluctant to get involved until there is a critical mass of participants. Perhaps the best way to address this is to ‘seed’ one or two member sites early in the process so that we can begin with a critical mass in place. If we succeed, we can use that template to help others develop similar sites in the future.

D.   Summary Table


Possible Features



Centralized Common, Broad in Scope

·        Site would include all kinds of IP

·        User-generated reviews to aid searching and quality control

·        Zoned for ease of use

·        Commons would pay for ‘Zone A’ material


·        like an eBay for IP – something for everyone

·        spreads open-source message broadly

·        comprehensive archive

·        an enormous undertaking – would require a huge organization to keep from being unwieldy

·        expensive

·        expenses likely to outpace use

·        potential to become junkyard

Centralized Commons, Niche Player

·        site would focus on one type of IP, with depth in that field

·        would consult with experts in field to ensure quality

·        could expand to other fields after initial success


·        targets specific needs of specific community – a tailor-made commons

·        satisfies a known demand

·        easier to control content

·        manageable size

·        allows us  hone our model

·        doesn’t spread open source message very widely

·        less rhetorical force than broad commons

·        may require a blue-ribbon panel of experts

Distributed Commons, IP Exchange

·        Commons would be meta-organization, like NYSE, facilitating transactions among listed members

·        Anyone ‘listed’ in the Commons agrees to our open-source license terms

·        Experts in each field build own mini-commons

·        Uses market for expertise, rather than our own top-down content selection

·        We don’t shoulder as many of the expenses

·        Allows us to focus on Commons platform, rather than content

·        Sacrifice some control

·        Requires monitoring to ensure members continue to meet criteria

·        Possible loss in cache of Commons brand

·        Requires first-rate search functionality


Our brief poll of authors and artists indicated a general interest in donating works to the Commons and enthusiasm for the concept of an artistic GPL. However, as would be expected, artists were concerned about losing control over their work. There were both economic and non-economic considerations. On one hand, authors were turned off by the idea that Disney could make a movie out of their work without compensating them. On the other, artists were uncomfortable with the thought of Hustler, Phillip Morris, or a political candidate with whom they disagreed using their work in a manner or for purposes they found objectionable. The question is whether the self-selection of artists should occur at the gate of the Commons (with some artists choosing not to participate at all) or within the Commons (with artists choosing from a menu of licenses, some more restrictive than others). Striking the right balance is crucial: too little protection for the donor’s interests and no one will donate; too little room for the users to use the work, and the service is useless.

Offering a range of licenses may be the best way to provide needed flexibility to the Commons licensing regime. We must decide whether such a range is acceptable, and if so, what terms the Commons will allow. Apart from a standard open-source/GPL license, please consider the following options:

Public Domain License – This would be the least restrictive option, granting a non-exclusive, royalty-free license, without imposing the viral conditions of the GPL.

Additional Restrictions:
Attribution to Artists/Public Notice of Modifications – satisfies the ‘moral rights’ concerns of artists, preserving their reputation by requiring attribution and notification of modifications.

Non-commercial Use Only – allows artists to capitalize on any interest that a major label or studio might have in their work, while allowing widespread individual use.

Academic Use Only – could be especially useful in getting donations of old journal articles and documentary films.

Unmodified Use Only – mollifies the concerns of those artists who would donate a work, but have ‘moral rights’ concerns about integrity of work.

Timed Donation – allows the artist to revoke the work from the common after n years. Like the termination of an assignment of copyright, this restriction would not affect ongoing reliance interests, but would prevent any future derivative uses.


We should decide on general terms of use for the Commons and a general policy with respect to removal of content. Will we only evaluate content with respect to whether it is infringing, or will we also screen/remove content on the basis of other factors, such as quality, popularity, or (non-)obscenity? This question goes straight to the heart of the openness of Creative Commons, and is likely to draw rather principled responses at the meeting. But this is a necessary discussion. It is too easy to imagine a scenario in which a completely unregulated Commons turns into either a junkyard for worthless content, or alternately, a repository of Internet pornography.

There are a number of ways to curb this possibility, some quite restrictive, others less so. (This list is not exhaustive, and is intended only to spark discussion.) First, as a way to ensure quality of content, we could condition listing in the Commons on the continued popularity of a work. For instance, anything that was viewed or downloaded more than 10 times a year could remain, while anything that went untouched for more than 12 months would be deleted from the site. Second, we could institute a user review feature, such that only material that received two or more ‘stars’ from reviewers would remain. Third, we could have an editorial board on the staff of the Commons that would vote on whether to remove content, based either on lack of quality, or obscenity. This option is likely to be the most contentious, since it necessarily involves censoring the Commons, something which many of us may oppose on principle. Nevertheless, we should not blind ourselves to the possibility that the Commons could be overrun with material to which many of us might not want to attach our names (as board members).


Creative Commons must find a way to cover its expenses. In order for this organization to be sustainable over the long haul, it must have a reliable source of revenue to pay for staff, equipment, digitizing and hosting material, and maintaining the site. Will we rely solely on grant money from foundations, or will the Commons meet some of its costs by other means? Two possible sources of funding we should discuss are (1) users of the Commons, and (2) companies that stand to benefit from use of the Commons. We should discuss whether we are prepared to draw on these sources or whether doing so would dilute the message of the Commons.

Extracting money from users is a dicey proposition. First, some of us may be opposed to the idea as a matter of principle. Second, without highly sought-after content, it is difficult to imagine that users would pay for using the Commons as such. Third, charging users could expose the Commons to claims of vicarious copyright infringement. Nevertheless, if charging users is an acceptable option, we should assess the viability of either a pay-per-use or subscription-based billing structure, keeping in mind that our answers may vary depending on whether we target individual or institutional users of IP. We may very well decide that charging users of the Commons is either not worth the effort or potential liability, or would dilute the message of the Commons so much as to be completely unacceptable. If that is the case, then we need to find other sources of revenue.

One option is to ally the Commons with corporate partners. A company like Kodak might be interested in sponsoring our photography site, supporting the Commons in exchange for recognition as a benefactor, or paying royalties anytime a user ordered a glossy print of an image on the Commons. (We might even have a thumbnail Kodak icon on this section of the site.) The same could hold true for a company like Kinko’s, if we had a coursepack section, or a bindery for our out-of-print book section, allowing users to create hard-bound custom anthologies or inscribed copies of their favorite old books. We should discuss whether such corporate partnerships are anathema to the Commons, and whether the small royalties we might receive outweigh the transaction costs of maintaining such a funding regime.


So that we don’t lose any momentum, we should be prepared to build on the decisions we make at the May 7 meeting. Our short-term goals should include the following:

  1. Decide on a search committee to get a Board in place and hire a CEO to design/launch venture.
  2. Incorporate Creative Commons, securing 501(c)(3) status.
  3. Register relevant domain names, trademarks.
  4. Secure more funding.
  5. ‘Seed’ initial sites (depending on how we structure the Commons). This could involve partnerships with pre-existing open-source groups - for example EFF (which just released its Open Audio License for music) or one of the free software movements.
  6. Get our site up and running.
  7. Other?

Once we have a Board in place and a CEO to begin with the day-to-day operations of Creative Commons, we will be able to make decisions for the Commons without relying solely on a distributed email list. That will allow for speedier, more authoritative, and more accountable decision-making, and should allow this organization to get off the ground. Perhaps our last item of the day should be deciding who will serve on this search committee and how we will nominate and vote for a Board of Directors.